tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 9, 2013 4:30am-6:31am EST
author of the morning money column. on my note, it says it is a must read for anyone who cares about wall street. i do not know if it is a must read, but we hope you read. we are honored to have the director of the consumer financial protection bureau. a few housekeeping notes. if you have cell phones, we would be happy to have you tweet the event. just turn them on vibrate. i have a tab to get twitter questions if you have those for me. i would like to thank the foundation for their partnership. we are appreciative of their efforts. here to say a few words is michael peterson, the president and chief operating officer. [applause] >> good morning. welcome today.
the nonpartisan mission is to increase awareness and accelerate action on america's long-term fiscal challenges. we just made it through a government shutdown. we just have a couple months before we have similar deadlines. we think it is important to move beyond governing by crisis and institute a long-term fiscal plan. we need to get our long-term fiscal plan in order. governing by crisis hurts the economy. governing by crisis reduced to gdp. on top of all of the other economic challenges, we are
adding insult to injury and self-inflicted wounds. this is also affecting american families. three out of four voters say they are concerned their financial situation will worsen as a result of crisis-driven policies. it is hurting families. it is a consumer issue. i can think of no one we would rather hear from than richard cordray, the first director of the consumer protection bureau. we look forward to good discussion today. [applause] >> thank you for your continued support. i would like to welcome everybody on live stream and those watching on c-span. without further ado, i would like to introduce richard cordray. [applause] >> i always think we should have entrance music like at a basketball game.
are you a basketball player? >> forward. >> how about power forward? >> that would not be justified. >> i wanted to start a little more broadly with some comments from elizabeth warren giving a speech today in which she says the system is still rigged against families in favor of powerful interests. it seems like we are now four years on from the worst of the financial crisis, some of the worst abuses of the mortgage industry. surprising that she would say it is still rigged despite all of the work that has been done, the passage of dodd-frank. do you think that is true, that the system is still rigged
against working families in favor of powerful interests? >> i have not seen those remarks. i am always interested to hear what senator warren has to say. congress clearly made a judgment that a new agency needed to be created, that there is someone to stand on the side of the average consumer to make sure they are treated fairly in the marketplace. that is a big part of our role. we are concerned about every individual consumer to make sure they are treated fairly and that the market is working for average americans so they can understand pricing and risk and make judgments about their choices that they can live with over the long term. that is the work we will continue to be doing over the next several years.
>> do you think we are safer now than we were in 2009 in terms of the mortgage products we use, student loans. have we made a fair amount of progress in protecting consumers from where we were four years ago? >> there is no question that the mortgage market will be safer and function better with our new rules that take effect january 10. they were designed to root out some of the most responsible practicessible that blew up the mortgage market. the card act that was enacted several years ago -- we were tasked with reporting on the
affects of the card act, how that has affected the average consumer in the credit card marketplace. we found there have been a number of positive effects from the statute. every day that the consumer bureau is doing its work, we are making further progress to clean up. yesterday, we put out the beginning piece of the process to revise debt collectors. that is our focus and the work we are doing. it is positive and will continue to be positive for consumers. >> speaking of the qualified residential mortgage rule and the ability to pay -- two things that are controversial in the mortgage market, a number of republican congressmen wrote you a letter saying the industry is not ready for this, the
marketplace is not ready for this, it is going to inhibit the flow of mortgages, it will be too hard for smaller institutions to comply as of january 10. what do you say to those people? >> nine extra days. [laughter] >> that will fix everything. what is your response to those who say we are not ready to implement these rules? explain what these two rules mean and whether or not we are ready to implement them. >> the rule that the cfpb was required to write. the qrm rule is the ability to repay rule. it is a simple principle. you might wonder why we need a
rule to tell lenders that when you lend money to a borrower, you should pay careful attention to the borrower's ability to repay. it seems like lending 101. in the mortgage market, it was not at all the norm, particularly with the securitization in the secondary market. people made loans that were not sustainable over the long term or even the fairly short term. they were able to sell them in the secondary market. they began to fail and pay close attention to whether those funds worked for the borrower. the borrowers should have known better. the pricing on the loans was opaque. they might be advertised over a teaser rate as if that would be for the life of the loan. there were a lot of problems. as to the letter and the observation, it is a curious
observation. the way congress passed dodd- frank -- title 14 of the law would have taken effect of its own accord at the beginning of january 2013. 10 months ago now. it would've had a new framework. it is not as though our qm rule has altered the status quo and without it the status will would have continued to operate as it was. change was coming. it was embedded in the statute. fact that we wrote that rule delayed the implementation of the changes in the market by one year. we have given industry an extra year beyond the two years to begin to get ready for this. the vast majority of institutions are ready.
it is important that we continue to move ahead. certainty in the mortgage market is critical to the emerging and continuing housing recovery. many institutions have taken this seriously and gotten themselves into position. there are other things building onto the qm regime. the longer that is delayed, the longer it delays further steps, such as gse reform, being able to build on a platform of knowing where we are. we just received that letter. we will look carefully at it as we do with all input. there is quite a bit of interest in this at the moment. >> you are not inclined to delay implementation. >> it is not clear what the dates should be. our hard work to get these rules
in place was a considerable burden. it means that industry has actually had more time than they would have originally anticipated. we have worked closely with industry over the implementation of the rules. industry wants us to clarify points so they would not have to guess at them or to clarify operational points. we have done a lot of hard work around the project we call regulatory implementation. what i have said -- and i think this is important -- the rules take effect january 10. in order to examine for compliance, we have to have time to assess compliance. in the early months after that deadline, what we are looking for is good faith efforts to come into substantial compliance with the rules, not perfection. we all share the same attitude.
some of the concerns have been significantly overblown. >> i want to drill down on 2 points of that. smaller institutions say they do not have the compliance staff to be ready for this by january 10. mortgage lenders say they are not clear what they can do outside the qm rule. i guess there will be some leeway while they figure that out. how do you address the institutions who say they cannot comply because they do not have the staff and the larger institutions? >> in terms of community institutions that say they cannot comply, i am not sure who those are. we wrote in a further provision in the rule. we did not have to do this. we were convinced that there was reason to treat institutions differently.
any smaller institutions with less than $2 billion in assets have special provisions. some of them may still be unaware of that. we continue to try to get the word out about that. if it is mortgage servicing they are concerned about, if they are servicing 5000 fewer mortgages per year, they are exempt from significant chunks of the servicing rule. we have tried to take account of that. the non-qm lending. i have tried to be clear about this. the ability to replay is not revolutionary in lending. it codifies commonsense principles that responsible lenders have followed for decades.
if you have underwriting standards that you have followed and those loans have performed well through the crisis, which is the worst economic event probably of our lifetime, certainly to date, then you should continue making those loans. if they happen to fall in the qm category, those are good performing loans. it would be bad business to leave the money on the table. i have tried to be forceful about that. the difference between a non-qm loan and a qm loan is small. we have attempted to quantify it and we encourage others to give us their data. we estimate it is typically 15 or fewer basis points. it is not a huge effect on the market. >> there is going to be a quiz after this on the qm rule and you will have to give me the details.
i would like to turn to someone from politico who has a question for you from someone on the hill. >> obviously, the bureau has taken a lot of heat from republican lawmakers. who are the republicans you reach out to that you are closest with to get a sense of what their primary concerns are? >> i have tried to be evenhanded and reach out to all of the republicans to talk about these issues. that includes the current and past chairman of the financial services committee and the ranking member -- the current ranking member and the former ranking member on the senate side. i have said this again and again. maybe i came to washington a little naïve. congressional oversight is very advantageous to our bureau.
some of it reflects concern or opposition to the concept of the bureau. to people who are looking carefully at everything we do and pointing out concerns and issues that we should be attentive to, that is good input for us. you always hope your friends will tell you if you have food in your teeth. sometimes it is people who are less sensitive to you who are or inclined to point those things out. but you need to hear it. for us to be attentive to people's concerns -- it has been true on a number of different fronts -- helps us scrub our operation and help us be where we should be, which is managing these types of concerns. i will be testifying in front of the senate banking committee on tuesday. i am required to do it at least every six months. typically, it has been a bit more frequent than that.
i always value that opportunity and look forward to it again next week. >> republicans on the house financial services committee like to see you and really enjoy your company. >> i try to help them enjoy my company. >> on the questions of oversight and pushback responses from industry, what are one or two examples of things that you have responded to or changed based on that oversight or feedback, particularly about the review process with banks? there were concerns that there were enforcements and they were more adversarial than they should have been. tell us how you changed on that front and if there are areas based on congressional oversight, you made changes?
>> we think about from time to time how we are allocating our resources. initial adjustments are not necessarily the right judgments over the long term. when we need to adjust, we adjust. the subcommittee chair raised the question of how transparent was our regulatory agenda. he noted the fcc tended to publish a forward-looking agenda and that we had not done so. i was not familiar with that practice at other agencies. early on, it was not so easy for us to do. when you are building an agency from scratch, you do not have a lot of fully formed future plans. we now publish a regulatory agenda.
it is fairly predictive of where we are going in the next six or 12 months. i told him i thought that was a helpful input for us. werewe were doing was, we submitting that information to omb. they published it on their website. another example is that senator crapo has been clear about data collection. that has prompted a dialogue between our staff and his staff, myself and him, and senators and representatives who have indicated that concern. that has reminded us that data is sensitive. we need to be sensitive to data and privacy concerns. we have to comply carefully with federal law. it is important to us to get the
story out. we have to have data to do our jobs. when congress requires us to write a report about the credit card market, whether it needs to be changed or tweaked or updated, if we do not know anything about the credit card market, we cannot possibly do that job in a way that is useful to congress. when we write mortgage rules, having the data to understand what we are doing and be able to assess its impact over time, which may require revisions over the next two years, is critical to us doing our work in an informed and intelligent way. if we are shooting in the dark without information, that is not going to be good for anybody. >> you are compiling this massive database of information. i do not know what they are afraid this data will be used for. do you think it is unwarranted that there is a massive database
being formed of consumer complaints? >> it is a topic. some of the input we received underscores the closest attention from us. it is not enough to say we need information to do our work and we do not pay attention to concerns around that. nothing would undermine the work of the agency more than four people to get a sense that we are not paying attention to federal law in those respects. it's also important to understand what this data is for. the information we collect is very different from the purposes the industry itself collects. industry, typically, for example they want to know about richard. what did i spend?
what did i go? that's an entirely different approach than what we're doing which is we're monitoring these institutions for how they -- how they treat consumers. it's an aggregate, a pattern type of thing. we don't care what richard corddry spent last night. what we care about is what kind -- fees and pricing. we have to be able to keep up with understanding what they're doing to consumers. >> you said you didn't agree with the charactization where reviews were done in an adversarial basis and therefore had to be changed somewhat. if that's true you don't agree with it, why did you agree to stop sending enforcement lawyers? >> there was a certain message from that practice that was not the message that was intended. we've been working hard to
integrate our supervision and our enforcement elements of the bureau. we're a little different animal -- certainly a different animal from my experience. i had enforcement authority but i didn't have any sort of examination authority or supervisery authority. it's something i had to learn about when i came to the bureau. most of our enforcement attorneys are in the same boat. they need to understand how the examination function works and how it is getting to a similar result. they have to understand how enforcement works when it's an appropriate tool and when it's not. in attempting to integrate this is one of the early judgment wes made two years early on. it seemed to me that this cost were outweighing the benefits and so we've made an adjustment there. >> you mentioned ohio. somebody was telling me that you essentially commute from ohio to washington and don't live here full-time which -- >> i think that's healthy
actually. >> i was going to ask you about that. i'm a d.c. native. i love the d.c. itself. but not wanting to be in the political culture, it's certainly understandable. but i wonder how that informs your execution of your duties of this job. do you think it help dwrouse be closer to institutions outside this policy wonk world of washington? how does your decision affect how you operate? in t's been helpful to me certain respects. it's hard on me and my family. it's a certain amount of, you know, effort that you have to put in. but frankly it's no different than from what the members of congress do. it give mess a better appreciation for the sacrifices they make in being in public service and that's whether you agree on sub tanive issues. i can agree how what they do
and how they do it. washington is a bubble. there's the government mentality. it's good to get away from that in part of your life. there's a real prosperity bubble around the washington area if you look at the wealthiest counties in the united states, a significant number of the 10 wealthiest counties are the suburban maryland counties and the suburban virginia county. this is not a place that has seen and suffered the great recession in the same manner that i've seen it in ohio, in and around my home noun the areas of that state as it's unfolded. i think it's very healthy for me that on the weekend that i go to the grocery store or the barber or whatever and people who are paying attention to what i'm doing, they tell me pretty straight what they think -- they've always done that when i was in other public positions. and i like having that inl put. >> you don't think you get that same input at the whole foods
on peach street? >> i'm sure i'd get input. but it would be a little different. >> i want to talk about this idea that there is a brain drain at the cfpd. it's understandable. the agency had a bit of a hard time getting started getting the opposition on the hill. a lot of folks a naturally moving on. there's the notion that you're losing a lot of very important folks, a lot of people with knowledge of everything they do. the creation of it or leaving. is that a problem for you guys? how are you dealing with it? and are you recruiting a lot of good talent now? >> yeah, i think from time to time any agency loses some folks and you look at the kind of folks we've recruited to the agency, you know, some number of them have spent their lives going and doing something for a few years and then moving on to do something else. i think it's natural that would be true of the time they spent
at the bureau. so we have lost some -- i would agree some important folks. but we gained important folks to fill their places and the talent at the bureau continues to be of the highest caliber. it's by far the most talented group of people i've ever worked with. and that is just as true if not more true today than it was a year ago or two years ago. we continue to get tremendous numbers of applicants per ever position and at the highest levels we're recruiting among some really great people. the attraction for us, the key thing, the advantage we have is first of all, our mission which is extremely attracted to people. a lot of people who have done a lot of things in their life but they haven't found the kind of satisfaction that they're finding at the bureau working to improve the financial lives of 313 million americans knowing that they can make some significant difference on that particularly in the early going here. and it's also oddly attractive for people to be a part of a new agency.
you know, when you're in it and doing it, you actually find that's challenging and burdensome because we're thinking through pretty much every issue through scratch. sometimes you wish it was already settled in an attempt to go through that exercise. that's attractive to people and it continues to be very much so. if you look at our leadership, and it's been a pretty staple team, they're outstanding -- stable team, they're outstanding. i now have a trajectory going forward that i didn't have a year ago and that's pro-brought stability to the agency as well. >> do you have a wigs of how long you'd like to stay there at cfpb and give me one or two things that you would like to accomplish before move ok? what are the most critical things you would like to see the cfpb do? >> it's been the first time i've known for sure that i've been at this agency -- heading
the agency for a significant period of time. and that's a great thing. it gives you a little more patience. on the other hand i don't want to lose the sense of urgency i've had that knowing from lots of experience in my life what an amazing opportunity this is for me and everyone who work tats bureau to really make a mark in a way that really will benefit people throughout this country. i mean, it's a very homespun thing that you're affecting the markets that people use to access credit to get access to opportunity to manage the financial sight of their lives which can undergird you know, either success or failure in other aspects of their lives as well. and i've seen -- i've seen the real effect of that. when i was in county and state government with people -- when i was back as a county treasurer and we were in fault in collecting property taxes about delinquent property taxes an seeing the differents these
people had always made more difficult because they were having trouble managing the financial market, having trouble understanding some of purposely and is hidden from them so they can't easily figure it out. those are all reasons that motivate me in this job. as i look forward, you know, what -- what do i hope to accomplish? i think there's lots of room for progress in these markets. i think it will be notable within a matter of a couple of years how much -- how much better -- how much better is the piping and the mortgage market in terms of how it serves consumers and how it serves responsible lenders as well. we will have rooted a lot of things that if they had been rooted out so years ago, i don't think we would have had a financial crisis, anything of what we experience. but also one of the things that i emphasize a lot and increasingly am trying to
become a loud and clear voice on this is that we have to do a better job in this country of educationing people about how to handle their finances and it stars with the schools and it starts with young people. but it's true of all of us. we have not paid attention -- we've neglected that point and it makes everything harder for people. it makes everything worse in terms of making choices that they can live with and not end up regretting. and it's -- it is really a scandal and a shame that this country has not paid more attention to that and done a better job. and if we haven't made real discernible progress in that the next several years thenly be disappointed in myself and in the bureau? >> very short answer to this one, is there a political future for richard corddry? which would consider running for an elective office in ohio? >> it's not a political job.
i understand it's a job done in a political con teblings but it's a federal -- context, but it's a federal job and that's how i see it. >> you can send more questions #morningmoney if you have something in mind get it ready in the next few minutes. one good question that came in cfpb es this cfb -- which the market and authority? how do you pick in the nonbank area what you focus on and which tools you use? >> i think your question there just illustrated there are a lot of choices to be made in terms of how to prioritize our resources and our work. and it's a -- already a somewhat complex thing to determine what we choose to take on when and why.
i think we've had a thoughtful process around that but it falls into two baskets. some of it we don't have much choice about. congress dictated certain portions of our agenda. if they hadn't done so we probably wouldn't have made the same choices anyway. . that was the cause of the crisis. so that's understandable. it also is the largest single consumer financial market, vom between 10 and 13, some depending on what the evaluation of helping is at a given time. so that made a great deal of sense. now, as we have a little more room in our agenda to figure out what we think we should be doing without being subject to specific mandates and we're still under some, the mortgage rules were peculiar because we were not only mandated to d certain things but we were given a dramatic and urgent time frame for doing it. there were some things that we were required to do they don't
necessarily have a time frame. we have more room on our agenda, the debt collection, rule-making that we began on yesterday that may well the lead big changes in the debt collection market. that's a discretionary priority that we think is appropriate and we're putting fair amount of resources into that. what we try to do is what i think any of you would try to do if you were trying to make similar choices. we try to think about what is the risk to consumers. what is the scope of the market? what is the extent of consumeder harm? all of those things help guide us in terms of directing resources and that's true not only bureau-wide but also within each division. we risk our examinations. we try to prioritize our role-making and then as you say on a bureau wide basis we have to make choices among those as well. >> auto lending initiative would fit into this as well.
tell me a little bit of what you doing there in terms of trying to prevent discrimination in auto lending and particularly on the interest rates that people pay on their auto loans. give us an insight into your approach on this issue. >> so that's exactly what we want to do. we want to make sure that auto lending programs whether they're direct loan programs or indirect lending programs do not result in a discrimination against individual consumers. you know, next to a house and frakly for many people are not homeowners even more so than their housing -- their car becomes a critical element of their life. it's how to get back and forth to work depending on where you live unless you're in d.c. with great public transportation. you may very well be entirely department on having a car in order to be able to function and we want to be sure that a consumer who goes into that marketplace is not ending up paying more to borrow, to buy a
car based on the color of their skin or their ethnic background. that's pretty much a fundamental american principle that we all can agree on how to implement that, what the risks are and what actions need to be taken to minimize those risk appropriately is a much harder set of questions and that's what we're trying to work through in the moment. >> did you find that this was a significant problem that people are being discriminated against and getting higher interest rates that they shounlt otherwise get? what information did you see that caused you to believe there would be a need for some enforcement or investigation into this area? >> so i want to be a little careful because it's -- the norm is not to speak into too much detail any kind of investigation or examination of this kind. but we have seen indications that convinced there are concerns in this area. and they're not just similar where the concerns that people
saw in the mortgage market with the premium and other practices that have resulted in a number of discrimination actions that suggest department and the other banking agencies have pursued in the mortgage market. >> i want to open to audience questions. folks have question first richard. i think we've got microphones somewhere in the room. we'll start up over here. is there -- are there microphones? >> i could probably hear them. >> can you talk a little bit about how you evaluate credit availability vs. regulations? and could you do an actual renewal assessment as to whether or not any action taken is constrained credit? >> that is in fact, one of the lessons we've learned very forcefully in working on the mortgage rules. because the mortgage market interestly when dodd-frank was
written. and it was responding to a crisis, you know, in the economy that was caught by an overheated mortgage market that became pathological in various respects and a lot of very almost crazily irresponsible practices that have become, you know, very widespread. by the time we came to write the rules to implement dodd-frank we're now looking at a mortgage market that could hardly be more different. it's a market with credit that is real cri tying. this is what happened when you have a boom and a bust and a crash. mortgage lending was pulled back significantly and what we learned from getting an exceptionally broad range of input is that access to credit is a very significant problem that we're going to have to pay attention to here. it isn't just adding new consumer protections if credit is going to shrink even more.
that is currently one of the big problems in the mortgage in helping markets. so that was notable to us. and i think it will inform our approach to all rules. as i said we can write the best most gold-plated consumer protections for people that we can devise and in and of itself everything else being equal. that's a good thing. but if it means that it's going to dry up credit so that consumers can't actually borrow and have the opportunity that borrowing for a number of consumers mean. you know, many individuals have to borrow to get a higher education. almost everyone needs to borrow to buy a house. that creates opportunity in people's lives. if the lending isn't there to serve consumers then they can't consume. that's a balance that i think we need to strike with all the rules. as we go forward, we are actually required with every rule we write in our statute to have a look back at least every five years, ago we certainly won't wait that long on major
rules like the mortgage rules to be assessing the impact of those. if we find that the affect of the rules is turning up differently than what we expected or there's some sort of new concern that it gives rise to or that we got something wrong, i think we've shown we will not be hesitant to revisit. we're not going to stand on the fact -- well, we decided it and we're stuck with it. what we want to know is that these markets are working well. and we did that with the remy tans rules where we fixed three significant problems that the industry pointed out to us. it delayed the rule a bit but it made ate better rule that took effect a week ago. i think it will be dramatic improvements in that market and how consumers are treated. the mortgage rules we have made a number of tweaks even after we finalized the rule particularly the tweak for small lenders that is very significant for community banks and credit unions. and as we go, we encourage people to bring us data on
what's actually happening so we're not missing thing. the october here is not to write every rule and to write every provision. it's to get the market right and that's paying attention to the data and how it works. >> we have a question right behind here. and there's a microphone for you. >> director, i think you have a very tough job and you're doing it very well. so i wanted to thank you for your public service. everyone that provides -- that's good and provides consumer financial products or services wants good outcomes for consumers just like you do. the focus has been enforcing against bad behavior that we've seen come out of the bureau. what is the bureau thinking about or what will it be doing to encourage good behavior? are you thinking about best practices or good incentives to
get the right outcomes for consumers? >> it's a great question. it's one that we grappled with from the beginning. first of all, i appreciate your comments about the difficult of my job. it's nice that people comment on that. they were commenting on the way in that i had a big binder for today. i said some days i'm getting two of these and it feels like a student when you have unreasonable teachers giving you too much homework. in any event, the question you asked is something we have asked ourselves because do we really want the entirety of the bureau about being the bare minimum people limping over the threshold of complying with the law? or what about best practices, what about the some of the things that we see that should be more widespread in the market? that's a hard question because we don't necessarily have legal authority to insist on best practices. although there's much we can do to encourage and the dialogue we have with industry which has been a very good one and a very
broad one does give us some ability to influence that. but i would say this -- the way in which we've had some -- some discernible impact on improving practices beyond just compliance with the law has interesting enough been our consumer come plants and our consumer complaint data base. you're starting to see a number of stories about how industry is getting the message. they're understanding what they're doing. we've been really clear about this. we paid attention to consumer come plants. in materialy going it wasn't easy to do. some of it i thought was valid because when you have a few hundred complaints poured in there it doesn't necessarily give you a good picture. once you go get the point where you are now we've received and handled 230,000 complaints. it's as though you're adding pixels to the picture and it becomes more fine and more precise an more accurate in
terms of indicating the patterns of what's happening to consumers. it's just common sense. if you hear about a problem from two consumers it's very different than if you're 200,000.rom 200 or it helped us prioritize our enforcement work and our rule-making work. institutions seem to be getting that message that therefore they should get out in front of his and pay attention as well. that's how it becomes a great business and over time if it loses that focus it often doesn't continue to succeed. but businesss that are now paying close attention to the consumer complaints that they have public access in their own websites and being more responsive to their customers builds lt, that excellent customer service,
lping them to expand and minimize legal risks. we are strongly encouraging and applauding that wherever we see it. that's the way in which we are pushing up the quality of what's going on in the marketplace quite apart from any particular rule or any particular enforcement action of the kind. >> we're about to run short of time. but i like to give folks an opportunity at the end of these things to sort of give an assessment of what they hope their legacy will be in the job that they have. so elizabeth warren created the cfpd, she'll be remembered as the person who had the idea and created it. when people write about the first era under richard corddry, what do you hope they'll sigh? >> i hope they will say we created an agency from scratch and built it into a solid agency that takes care of the
asics and delivers the kind of confidence and ability that the public has a reason to expect. but second rkt i hope that they will be able to say that we stayed close to our compass which is how to look out for consumers in the marketplace but that over time we understood that mission in a very balance and comprehensive way which as i indicated before it includes protection first consumers with access to consumers. i hope they will be able to say that we were good listeners and what we heard and we took broad input informed our work and made it better. but i do hope and expect they'll be able to say that we improved the market and we rooted out a number of bad practices. thattiness tukeses got the message that they needed to be more careful and thoughtn't about how they were treating the customers and that they stepped and improved the
operations and on mandating the tools. and finally that we've done some of the hard work to create a more informed consumer public in the country that can stand on its own two feet and look out for itself doesn't depend on washington to make everything i right for them but people are in position to know what they need to know, know what they need to figure out, make good choices and good decisions and therefore don't need as much protections. >> good choices, sounds like what i say to my kids every day. sounds like good advice for everybody. you've got a binder to get back. so we'll get let you get back to that. i want to thank the peterson foundation and everybody on the live streem and thank you to joining usrddry for